Psychology | the Wakefield Doctrine

Fading-form Fridae -the Wakefield Doctrine-

May 12, 2023 By clarkscottroger

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)

This is the Doctrine’s contribution to the Unicorn Challenge.

Hosted by jenne and ceayr the rules are nearly as simple (at the same time a bit more liberating) as those of the Six Sentence b’hop:

take the week’s photo as your prompt
write a story
do not exceed two hundred and fity words

Pretty simple, isn’t it?

Prompt photo:

The blue sky refuses to succor, it’s hue neither morning-hope nor nighttime’s-end,

I don’t have much time.

Distractions that were once a brand, (both in the 21st C marketing’s fashion and in the literal sense of belonging to), fall away like unruly children at a birthday party after the clown has left the room,

I don’t have much time.

Regrets and recriminations, disappointments and disillusion turn and look forward, deprived of their duty to inform me of the road ahead, deprived of appreciation, are but another unimportant detail to the view ahead,

I don’t have much time.

A lifetime of teachings, both false and harmful, true and harmless, do as little to help my decision-process as a deaf-mute studio audience in a cancelled sitcom, ratings and applause impotent,

I don’t have much time.

The scene remains unchanged, past becomes present, the future irrelevant; a torn fragment of something not as glorious, (and, surely welcomed), as Understanding and neither is it the slowly rising terror at nightmare’s endlessly dark opening door, (surely a relief),

I don’t have much time.

Nothing changes, everything is different; Life is endless and death a step on an endless staircase.

I don’t need anymore time.

Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine

Six Sentence Story -the Wakefield Doctrine- [a Rue DeNite Six]

May 11, 2023 By clarkscottroger

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)

This is the Wakefield Doctrine’s contribution to the Six Sentence Story bloghop.

Hosted by Denise, there is only one rule: use the prompt word and make the sentence count: Six

This week’s prompt word:

TRUCK

“Miz DeNite? Please follow me.”

The young man watched Rue, Rocco watched the young man and Rue DeNite smiled to herself, ‘All the world’s a stage and the dance is always for money;’ as if on cue, an armored trucked came to a stop on the far side of the glass wall that shielded the lobby from the ravenous Miami morning sun, ‘except when it’s not’.

The floor in front of the bank of elevators was marble and not drink-stained plywood, the interior lighting discreet rather than salacious; for her part, Rue wore a business suit by Chloé, carried an Epsom Kelly Sellier, the picture perfect wardrobe of a successful business woman had been waiting in her hotel suite; a chance brush against her thigh as Rocco stepped to the back of the elevator, pressing the clip of the garter belt she’d packed, brought back her conversation with the owner of the Bottom of the Sea Strip Club & Lounge.

“There won’t be nothin’ to it,” Lou was waiting in his booth as the last customer stepped out of the club, “go to Miami, convince them you’re my personal assistant and let them show you what they’re hiding…”

The look on Rue’s face prompted the club owner to elaborate, “Everybody’s hiding something, either their sins or their ambition and the funny thing, when the right person appears, they can’t resist bragging; this company, the Bernabau Company, is insisting on doing some business with my operation, fine, they’ll be expecting me to do due diligence, so help them believe you’re there to spy on ’em.”

Lou got up from the booth, “Hell, ain’t much different from your dancing, just pimp their imagination to your dance; do this for me and I’ll help you with that business on the Vineyard.”

Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: Six Sentence Story, the Wakefield Doctrine

Six Sentence Story -the Wakefield Doctrine-

May 10, 2023 By clarkscottroger

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)

This is the Wakefield Doctrine’s contribution to the Six Sentence Story bloghop.

Hosted by Denise, there is only one rule: use the prompt word and make the sentence count: Six

This week’s prompt word:

TRUCK

The sun, skulking through the stands of chestnut and birch since sunrise, gathered unnecessary strength, rose above the tree line and ate the scrawny shadows of the people walking along the dust-dry road. Being a Saturday morning in June, the company store played coercive host to the mountain families, down from their tar paper shacks that clutched at the steep side of numerous hollers fanning out from the small coal town.

“Decent folk,” the man, seven days late for a shave, spit on the ground, make-shift italics on the adjective, followed the trajectory of his saliva-and-hate projectile with the focus of a battle-weary sniper, “naturally know to keep to themselves.”

“But, Pa, he’s different,” his daughter, at the threshold of womanhood, heard the tremble in her voice and felt something powerful and undefined pull against the bonds of family; her submissive role at once comforting and yet, clutching the way the ground does at the edge of a swamp.

Hooking his thumb through the strap of his threadbare overalls like a soldier would the strap of his Enfield, stubbornness armoring his face even as a trill of something like fear feathered it’s way down his back, slowed his words, “You might think there’s only him and how it makes you feel, but family comes first and our family don’t have no truck with that Montague boy and his kin.

Loading the small wagon with the necessities of life on loan from the Company, the sun stared down on the town in soundless rage.

Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: Six Sentence Story, the Wakefield Doctrine

Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

May 9, 2023 By clarkscottroger

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)

So, about that ‘Everything Rule ‘.

Thing was, in the early days of this blog, we would get questions to the effect, ‘My husband always does (this) whenever (that) happens.’ Is that scottian thing or what?’

Of course, being the early years, we were all about describing the three predominant worldviews (clarks, scotts and rogers) in as many ways possible. In context, in theory, in principle, hell, in fairy tales and opera (operae?).

It was understandable that New Readers, when hearing about the affinity of the scottian personality for the occupation of police person, would be tempted to think that there were activities and attitudes, predilections and preferences that were characteristic of one ‘personality type’ and not the other two.

Note: as so often has happened in these pages, the questions, (from Readers), provided an opportunity to explain and otherwise illustrate aspects of the Wakefield Doctrine that may have been underserved. In this case, the reality of personal reality. The early focus was that our personal realities were simply that, that zone between us as individuals and the greater world that was unique to each and every of us. This approach was to be supplanted/enhanced/made-way-easier-to-visualize by the notion of relationship, i.e. the character of our relationship to the world around us and the people who make it up. You know, the relationship inherent in those who are Outsiders (clarks), Predators (scotts) or Herd Members (rogers).

the Everything Rule (‘Everyone does everything at one time or another’), reminds us that this personality-type system is not the product of a cumulative score where behaviors are tabulated and the number at the bottom of the column corresponds to a type.

No.

No, the membership in (one of) the three personality types, (predominant worldviews), is simply a coherence that indicates one over the other two. The easier way to get yer head around this relationship is found in our favorite metaphor of the eye exam. Consider each of the three predominant worldviews as a lens. In the course of a typical ear examin, the patient is asked to look at one set of letters and asked, as the doctor changes the lens on individual eyes, which provides the clearest view.

roger–scott ‘which is clearer?’ —<click> roger–clark —<click>

Getting off topic, (lol like that ever happens) and besides if you haven’t left by now you’re starting get the idea.

So, before providing a Reprint in which we describe the three personality types of the Wakefield Doctrine, lets conclucde this discussion of ‘the Everything Rule’.

The answer to our platform question at the top of this post?

No, there is nothing in one of the three that is not in the other two. It comes down to manifestation, how does a thing manifest when the person relates themselves to it (the job, the task, the avocation/occupation, hobby or love interest) and the world around them. ‘Everyone does Everything, at one time or another‘.

*

Of language and Laniappe(s), the Wakefield Doctrine…. lets get this thing going

February 19, 2013

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)

As promised, today’s Post examines the (use of the) metaphor of ‘fluency’, in the context of developing the efficacy of the interpersonal tools that are inherent in the Wakefield Doctrine. Lets go to our little friends at Wikipedia for an outline of the commonly accepted meanings of this fairly cool word. (oh yeah, turns out this is Part I of what seems to be a much more involved topic than I originally imagined.)

Language fluency is used informally to denote broadly a high level of language proficiency, most typically foreign language or another learned language, and more narrowly to denote fluid language use, as opposed to slow, halting use. In this narrow sense, fluency is necessary but not sufficient for language proficiency: fluent language users (particularly uneducated native speakers) may have narrow vocabularies, limited discourse strategies, and inaccurate word use…

In the sense of proficiency, “fluency” encompasses a number of related but separable skills:

Reading: the ability to easily read and understand texts written in the language;

Writing: the ability to formulate written texts in the language;

Comprehension: the ability to follow and understand speech in the language;

Speaking: the ability to produce speech in the language and be understood by its speakers.

Reading Comprehension : the level of understanding of text/messages.

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluency )

So what is it we are trying to say? (ha, ha… a little linguistics joke. After all that serious rogerian time what with the Wikipedia and such, I went and implied that I was not sure: a) what I was trying to say, b) whether or not you were capable of understanding what I was saying or c) both of these statements.)

At first I thought it would be pretty straight forward. The goal of developing fluency (as used in this context) is, through understanding the language of all three personality types, to allow you to shape your message in such a manner, that the likelihood that the target of (your message) will comprehend it as you intended. That’s a goal that is both reasonable and ambitious and worthwhile (in terms of the effort necessary to accomplish it.) So how do we do this thing? It would be best to start with the basics.

The Wakefield Doctrine…all people are born with the capacity (and capability) to perceive the world in one of three characteristic ways and at an early, early age we all pick one of these three ways to relate to the world and this becomes our predominant worldview. All of us retain the capacity to access the worldview of the ‘other two’, non-predominant worldviews. These three worldviews are:

the perspective of the Outsider, the clark personality type maintains a quality of separation from others, from the world around them, even from themselves

the life of the Predator, the scottian personality type is the person who, ‘lives through action’, aggressive and impulsive, a scott stands out in a crowd like a Ferrari in a Kia car lot

the roger who is emblematic of the (natural) drive of humans to associate, congregate, analyze and dramatize, rogers form the warp and weft of all human societies

Since each of the three personality types relate to the world around them in characteristically different ways, it is only reasonable that they will seek to communicate with that world in characteristically different ways.

clarks you know one of the funniest, weirdest things about clarks? (ok, a couple of funny weird things) it’s the percentage of time they will use the impersonal pronoun when talking about themselves!! damn! them people is strange… Interesting note: to the un-trained ear, both clarks and rogers will be characterized as having a ‘rambling conversational style’. But if you listen closely, you will hear that (the) clarks are rambling because they are discovering inferences and implications that were not apparent at the start of the conversation, that would enhance the understanding and appreciation of the topic. A roger, on the other hand, will sound like they are rambling because they are attempting to add new information that they feel further supports the initial topic. (nothing new or original, simply more corroboration for the point they are trying to make).

scotts, as we all know are all about short, declarative sentences. Noun, verb, object. Thank you very much. And, of course, the archetypical Interjection: ‘Hey!’ is always good. Mostly it is whatever demands action. Recently I witnessed a person get complimented on a new ‘hairdo’ the scott approached, conveyed positive response to ‘the look’ and simply said, “Look at you!”

rogers, as befits the personality type that most exemplifies the interactions of members of the herd, speak in terms that carry information not limited to the immediate subject, rather they will expand upon the initial topic, “well, we were all at the Calypso Club last friend for Jimmie’s Birthday Party (he threw his own party, can you believe that?) and Ms. Delguidice was there…dancing with a girl! Well, she was kinda cute and she was telling me how much she admired how far I have come in the Company in such a short time. Who did you say you knew that I knew?”

While it may be easy enough to imitate the language of the three personality types, the path to true fluency entails finding a way to see the world as (they) see it. Only by doing this can we truly understand their language(s). And only by acquiring this level of understanding can we claim true fluency.

(to be cont’d…. Part II ‘What do you mean, it’s more than vocabulary??! Rosetta this…)

Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: clarkscottroger, personality types, self-development, the Wakefield Doctrine

Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

May 8, 2023 By clarkscottroger

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)

all right, enough with the fiction and the story-telling

… ok, enough with the fiction.

The Wakefield Doctrine is a perspective on the world around us and the people who make it up. As a perspective (note: an additional perspective) it affords one of the opportunity to appreciate reality in a slightly different way. And, with the proper intent, this means we can be better at whatever it is that we would be better at, in life.

We are, all of us, born with the potential to experience the world from one of three relationships. These three relationships are, what in less fun and useful personality schema, would be referred to as the three personality types of the Wakefield Doctrine:

the Outsider (clarks)
the Predator (scotts)
the Herd Member (rogers)

While essential to the understanding and use of the Wakefield Doctrine, we’ll return to the characteristics of the three later. (That said, most Readers who return to this site more than twice* upon understanding the nature of the what we refer to as (the three) predominant worldviews), extrapolate most of the qualities, characteristics, quirks and peccadilloes** of this thing of ours.

At a very early age, one of these three ‘realities’ becomes enduring. It is the world the child experiences. It is in context and (in) relationship to this world the individual develops the social strategies and styles of interacting with the world around them and the people who make it up. aka their personality.

(Note: we have but one predominant worldview. We retain the potential to experience the world as do ‘the other two’, these are referred to as secondary and tertiary aspects. For some these can be significant and therefore an element in their behavior, for others, barely there, no influence.)

The difference between this and other systems of understanding: we have the perfect personality type for the reality we experience, for the world in which we are living.

Before we leave for the day:

the ‘goal’ of the Wakefield Doctrine is to allow us to better appreciate how we relate ourselfs to the world around us and the people who make it up.

So today: read up (among these posts) the descriptions and characteristics of the behavior and interpretation of everyday life from the perspective of: the Outsider (’cause neither of the other two wake up in the morning and try to figure what they’ll do in the world that waits them, ‘Out there’); and the Predator (hey, did you really think they’re completely asleep and that was why they’re staring at you like that, as you insist they will benefit greatly by waiting and reflecting finding inner serenity); and the Herd Member (sorry, as friendly and organized and remarkably social, you’re the one at risk, not them, they know and will be happy, no, they will be grateful for the opportunity to show you the Right Way).

Come, on! It’s more fun than you think. Wait, given the demographic of the four-time Reader, you already know that.

Warning! If you persist in learning the realities reflected the three relationships of the Doctrine, you will begin to see the clarks, scotts and rogers in your everyday world. The thing of it is, there’s a real good chance that you won’t be able to not see the clarks, scotts and rogers in your world.

Tomorrow: ‘the Everything Rule’

* the first is chance, a good friend’s recommendation and/or boredom; the second is confirmation to settle the ‘no, fricken way!’ and the last: ‘huh, this person reminds me of something on that site…’

** not that the Wakefield Doctrine cares about self-reported characteristics…way unnecessary